State Polls: Hillary leads in 30 of 33...

[SaveElmer]

For those that say National polls are meaningless!

For states that have conducted polls within the last two months, Hillary leads in 30 states, Edwards in 1, Obama in 1, and Richardson in 1....

Hillary's lead ranges from 7 to 31 points in these polls...

States where Hillary leads according to latest polls taken:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin...

States Where Edwards Leads:

Iowa (the margin is unsure...he leads substantially in one recent poll, narrowly in another, and is actually 2 points behind Hillary in another)...he seems to have the advantage there...


States Where Obama leads:

Illinois (Last poll only had him 6 points ahead of Hillary there)

States Where Richardson Leads:

New Mexico


http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/primary-election-poll-results/index.php

[AtomicKitten]

1. you'd never know it if you just read DU

:evilfrown:

[SaveElmer]

2. Well I didn't list the State of Denial...

:-)

[eyesroll]

3. I wonder what the state-by-state tally was in April 2003.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

5. Actually Hillary was leading in alot of those polls too...nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. Lieberman dominated the state polls at that time

And that DLC'er lost. Will the same happen to this DLC'er? Stay tuned.

[elizm]

59. There WERE no April results in his poll!! n/t

[Clark2008]

4. Much more meaningful set of poll data considering this is how

we elect presidents.

However, do we have state-by-state matchups against Republicans? I'm doubting she doesn't faire as well there.

No bashing. There's only one Dem running I wouldn't vote for and that Dem isn't Hillary. I'll hold my nose and vote for her, even knowing she doesn't have a shot in hell in my state.

[skipos]

6. And in the general election polls, Clinton underperforms Edwards and Obama

Bad news for Dems when the primary frontrunner looks to be weaker in the general election than the other top candidates.

Despite her large sums of money, greater name recogntion and primary strength...

New LA Times Poll:

Giuliani 48%, Clinton 42%, CLINTON LOSES BY 6%
Giuliani 45%, Edwards 43%, EDWARDS LOSES BY 2%
Giuliani 42%, Obama 46%, OBAMA WINS BY 4%

McCain 42%, Clinton 45%, CLINTON WINS BY 3%
McCain 40%, Edwards 44%, EDWARDS WINS BY 4%
McCain 40%, Obama 48%, OBAMA WINS BY 8%

Romney, 37% Clinton 44%, CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Romney 30%, Edwards 50%, EDWARDS WINS BY 20%
Romney 31%, Obama 50%, OBAMA WINS BY 19%

Rasmussen polls...

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%


Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (44%) McCain (44% ) TIED

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

[jaysunb]

8. This tells the real story...

thank you for posting.

Shall we have another round of " electability ? " the 08 version... :evilfrown:

[Clark2008]

10. Those are national polls, though, and we don't vote for

presidents nationally. We vote for them state-by-state, as the OP tried to point out to you.

These polls could be easily weighted by too many blue staters and not enough purple or red staters.

State-by-state polls give more evidence to Electoral College turnout.

[skipos]

52. Your point has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary underperforms Obama and Edwards

in most general election polls.

[Hardrada]

7. OMG! Does this suck or what??

[Heywood J]

9. Polls this early are meaningless.

We're a year away from PRIMARIES, much less the general. How many people in the population know who all the candidates are, much less how many care at this time.

Asking/saying who leads who right now means absolutely dick all except to the cheering sections.

[Clark2008]

12. True - but they are a gauge.

Right now the gauge is set on "who do I most know about" and not "who would I honestly vote for."

But, that's OK. I want to see the gauges.

[Heywood J]

14. Oh, it may be fun to _see_ them,

but let's not pretend they actually mean anything.

[SaveElmer]

17. They aren't meaningless...they just are not predictive of final outcome...

I never claimed they were...

They show what the state of the race is right now.

Taken with other polls over time they indicate trends.

They show candidates what campaign strategies are and are not working...

They aid candidates in gathering endorsements and support..


And they aid in fundraising


So they are not meaningless...

[Clark2008]

47. Correct.

They're snapshots in time.

[MGKrebs]

104. Actually we are only 9 months away. At some point they do begin to mean something.

And even if they aren't exact predictors of the eventual vote count, they are significant in terms of how each campaign reacts and adjusts to these numbers. So they are not meaningless.

By the criteria of how well a poll predicts a vote outcome, even a poll the day before an election may be considered "meaningless" since the only poll that actually matters is the election, but I don't think any of these polls claim to be predicting what the vote will be on election day. They are a snapshot of where things stand now. That is all. I don't think people conducting polls or posting poll results are claiming that the election is effectively over.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Historical perspective always helps

From USA Today, Feb. 21, 2003.

Poll suggests Lieberman, Gephardt with an edge

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman led the pack with 16% followed by Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt at 13% in a CNN-Time national poll of Democrats and those who lean Democratic.

All other candidates were in single digits: Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry at 8%; North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 7%; the Rev. Al Sharpton, 7%; former Illinois Sen. Carole Moseley-Braun, 4%; Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, 3%; Florida Sen. Bob Graham, 3%; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 2%. The remainder were for others or were not sure.

Link

I can't remember: Who wound up winning the Democratic nomination in 2004? Lieberman or Gephardt?

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

74. exactly n/t

[Colobo]

13. Yeah, and Hillary was going to crush everyone with her fundraising numbers...

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Resistance is Futile

All of your votes am belong to Mrs. Clinton.

(I, for one, welcome our new triangulating overlord.)

[Colobo]

16. I think this race is between Edwards and Obama

Clinton will wind up third. Wait and see.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Obama and Someone

Not convinced it's Edwards.

[SaveElmer]

19. It may be someday...but not now...

Right now it is a three way race...with Hillary having a decided advantage...

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Decided Advantages, My Butt

Look, Obama creamed her in primary fundraising - clearly people who have given thought to the issue just don't want Mrs. Clinton - other than the huge-money folks who were hit up hard by both Clintons. If a concerted effort by Mr. and Mrs. Clinton couldn't beat Obama - put a fork in her - she's done.

Personally, I'm not convinced that they want Obama - but they definitely don't want more triangulation and fleeing from taking a stand on anything controversial, other than the criminalizing of flag burning.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. Obama had 100,000 donors. He will dominate fundraising in the long run

While HRC (DLC-NY) was able to essentially match him (Obama netted slightly more primary fundraising) in the first quarter due to tapping corporate interests and other fatcats, Obama had far more donors than anyone--on either side--running for president. While many of HRC's fatcats have already maxed out, 90% of Obama's donors gave $100 or less. He will be able to tap those donors for more money several times over the course of the campaign, like Dean did, since they are not at the limit. He should demolish the field in fundraising over the course of the year because of this.

Has Faux News' Rupert Murodch donated to H. Clinton yet?

[SaveElmer]

46. "Has Faux News' Rupert Murodch donated to H. Clinton yet?"

You may wanna check Fox NewsCorps donations before you get to worked up... Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer are three names that leap out on that list....

Funny with all those donors Obama can't seem to catch up in most of these polls...

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

21. YAWN...Hillary's gonna lose anyways... she's not real and the voters know it.

[SaveElmer]

22. ...

[ddeclue]

24. Yeah Hillary's head IS in the sand over a lot of things including Iraq...

Doug D.

[oasis]

121. "Asstrich": One who refuses to accept evidence by putting on gluteus maximus blinders.

His/her head is buried in a more familiar place.

Only an ostrich or asstrich would deny that Hillary is bowling over the competition.

[JeffR]

23. National polls aren't necessarily meaningless

but they certainly are meaningless 18 months out. Even if the candidate I favor were ahead in this sort of poll result, I would read no meaning into it and take no particular comfort from it.

[JeffR]

30. Won't edit prior post

but I want to make clear that I think both national & state polls are meaningless at this point. If you don't take the national polls seriously at this point, there's no reason at all to take the state polls any more seriously.

Last I checked, it's April 2007. American election campaigns are preposterously drawn out compared to every other democracy's on the planet. Poll-thumping at this point, national, regional, state or otherwise, simply contributes to making us look like the international laughingstock we already are. As a Floridian, I'm already embarrassed enough...

[Clark2008]

48. I disagree.

State-by-state poling in probably more accurate than national poling in that it reflects more similar groups of people AND it is the way in which we elect a president. National polls could be heavily weighted with one region or another and, as we know, our regions are somewhat divided.

Is it subject to change in 18 months. Of course!! And many, many times.

[zulchzulu]

25. Good! Considering how well frontrunners this early do historically...

I fondly remember President Muskie...then of course, the Lieberman Administration...Wendell Wilkie, not a bad President... all frontrunners early in their campaign seasons...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. History may not be significant ...

Now that some big "decider" states are holding primaries early, the system may favor the early frontrunners, the financially connected. Lesser candidates will have no chance to showcase in the small state primaries.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Hooray!!! Big Money wins!! God Bless Amurica!! n/t

[zulchzulu]

29. Edsel spent a lot of money trying to convince buyers to buy the car

We know how that turned out... Edsel? What's that? Ford lost out big...

[madfloridian]

28. But this week one poll said Edwards led all the GOP candidates

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/164528/2571

"The latest Rasmussen polls are showing Edwards easily
beating all Republican contenders, while both Hillary and Obama
struggle against certain opponents. Edwards also has significantly
higher favorable ratings than either Hillary or Obama."

And he lists the match ups.

Are your polls referring to Democratic choices?

[SaveElmer]

31. Yep...

General election matchups don't mean much in a Democratic primary...

These are polls among Democratic voters...

[madfloridian]

32. Well, why didn't we think of that in 04?

All we heard was Dean couldn't beat Bush. But he was very close in two polls at least which never got publicity.

So why not be concerned in 08? It's good to beat the GOP contenders.

[AshevilleGuy]

34. No no no. It's all about nominating the candidate we LIKE.

Or the machine installs. They probably can't win the general election?? Hey, so what? We get to watch them make their acceptance speech at the convention!!! That is more important anyway. ;)

[Clark2008]

50. Well, Wes Clark DID beat Bush in national poling.

It still doesn't mean the media will give any of these people a fair shake.

But, to your other point: the Edwards poling is a national poll, not state-by-state poling. It doesn't mean very much. We don't elect presidents by popular vote, nationally. We elect them via the Electoral College, which is state-by-state.

[Phredicles]

33. How suckulent. Let's hope it changes by February.

[mckeown1128]

35. This post is somewhat a lie!

This post has a very pro-Hillary spin to it. Check out this link and read carefully. Hillary has only a 3-15 point spread in most states not 7-31. Also, Obama is leading in South Carolina and Edwards is leading in North Carolina. The most important fact is how close Obama has closed onto Hillary's lead. The trend is moving in favor of both Edwards and Obama. I am new here and don't want to offend but this is the most recent polling data that I have seen. I just thought I would point it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

[SaveElmer]

36. Not a lie at all...

Follow the link I provided. The latest SC poll had Hillary in the lead...one was conducted after the one in the link you provided...

If you didn't want to offend, implying that I was lying in the subject line is not a good way to do that

[mckeown1128]

41. not a lie but untrue!!!

RE-following the link you provided I still fail to see how the most recent poll you have for SC (Feb. 23-27, 2007) is more current than the one my link provided (April 6-8, 2007). The April poll has Obama ahead. Oh and don't forget that Edwards is up in NC.

[SaveElmer]

43. Most recent SC not on either site...

Yes I did not list NC correctly...

Edwards pulling up on the outside...with a big 2 states!!!!

[mckeown1128]

60. huh??

How can you claim that the most recent SC poll is on neither link. How is an April 6-8, 2007 poll not the most recent. Please tell me what poll is more recent for SC than that???

[SaveElmer]

61. I was slightly off...this poll was taken a couple days earlier...

Conflicts with the one posted


http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6358431


Clinton ahead here

[elizm]

56. SOMEWHAT a lie?

Look closely at the individual polls listed at the link. Many are so outdated they included 'possible' candidates as well as candidates who have already dropped out of the race (Warner for instance)! Obama's name is not even included in some of the polls (check Washington state, for instance)!

[SaveElmer]

62. I apologize somewhat...

I did rush through the results and didn't look as closely as I should have at some of them...but the fact is, Hillary is ahead in an overwhelming number of states...my intention was not to mislead (I wouldn't have posted a link if that was the case)...

According to current polling at best Edwards is ahead in Iowa, and NC...

Obama only leads in Illinois and SC (another poll taken the same week disputes this) as far as I can tell...

If you have any polling that indicates otherwise I'd like to see it

[elizm]

76. BUT many of the polls are dated FEBRUARY...

Take a look at many of the states where you said Hillary leads according to 'the latest polls'....MANY of them are from February and include people who have since dropped out of the race and/or who never even entered the race! You can hardly call that the latest information. I don't think many of us dispute the fact that Hillary was the chosen front runner out of the gate. But things have changed quite a bit since then, so IMO your post IS misleading because there is very little new or 'current' state by state polling information in the link you posted.

[SaveElmer]

78. Well that is a matter of interpretation...

I don't think February is too long ago for them to be meaningful...

After all many here are more t han willing to continue posting the Rasmussen Poll showing Hillary only 5 above Brownback...even though it was taken quite some time ago...

The dynamics have changed somewhat, but her lead in some of these states was pretty substantial...

And I did say in my OP polls taken during the last two months...so in that regard I don't think I was being misleading...

[CTLawGuy]

109. P3wned!!!!

... or however you say that!

Good research.

[fujiyama]

37. Well this far ahead

the second best known Democrat in the spotlight for over a decade and a half, married to a popular former president is beating others in a primary of Democratic voters.
.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Her "lead" in California gets cut in half if Al Gore's name is included

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O99QIG0&show_article=1

But, whatever. Obviously, a year and a half before the election, she's got the deal sewn up... It's inevitable, she's automatically entitled to it, and the best thing we can do is just accept that no matter what ANYONE thinks, she's going to be the nominee. And no other candidates or campaigns even stand a chance. :eyes:

...which, of course, is why Terry McAullife has been massively freaking the fuck out lately, threatening donors who are "unfaithful". :rofl:

[SaveElmer]

45. Point to where I said...

Hillary's election was "inevitable," or where I said she was "entitled"...

Sounds like someone is a bit defensive!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

102. Any poll this early in the game that leaves Al Gore's name out doesn't mean jack.

That is all.

[SaveElmer]

103. Al Gore ain't runnin...

Al Gore ain't gonna run!

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Now who is getting defensive?

I wonder if you can explain, this early in the game, the logic behind leaving Al Gore's name OFF of a poll, when EVERY time his name is included he garners "contender" numbers?

Right now he's "running" just as much as, say, Wes Clark is.

Anyway, Elmer, I will enjoy watching you eat those words come this fall.

[SaveElmer]

111. I understand hope...

I understand you want to soak up every scrap of evidence Al might be running...but the fact is...he has made it pretty clear on more than one occasion that he is not...

I have no fear of him running, I like Al as much as the next person...but to include him in polls when he is not is ridiculous...when and if, and that is a big if, he runs...then he should be included...

[Warren DeMontague]

119. C'mon, Elmer. Al Gore knows the DC game. He knows exactly what he would have to say

to end speculation. You know and I know that he HAS NOT SAID IT. He has not said "I am not running". He has said "I am not planning on running"..

that's not the same thing.

As of right now, he has not announced that he IS running- neither have most of the names on the polling site that you linked. Therefore, given the large amount of name recognition he has and the numbers he inevitably garners, he should be included. At least until he says, in no uncertain terms, that he is not going to be a candidate.

If Al Gore doesn't run, I will survive- in the primaries I will most likely support whichever candidate has the clearest, most morally unambiguous approach to the wrong-headed war in Iraq- how it started, and how to end it. As it stands now, that's not going to be Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

120. No politician ever closes doors entirely...

But his statements have been pretty strong on the topic...

If he were seriously thinking of it, he would be sending the word out privately to past supporters, money people etc...but it seems all those folks are signing on with other campaigns...

[Warren DeMontague]

122. He made the "door closing" statement in 2004, and people left him alone after that.

Until he does the same thing this time around, I'm going to continue to agitate for him to run.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Here are the only state polls that matter right now

Iowa

1) Edwards 27%
2) Obama 20%
3) H. Clinton 19%
4) Biden 4%
4) Richardson 4%

New Hampshire

1) H. Clinton 29%
2) Edwards 23%
2) Obama 23%
4) Richardson 4%
4) Biden 4%


Average rank:

Edwards: 1.5
Obama: 2.0
H. Clinton: 2.0

Voters outside of Iowa and NH are not paying attention yet. Ask 2004 Democratic nominee Joe Lieberman...

[SaveElmer]

44. Why?

First you leave off Nevada that comes in between those two...

And, 1992, Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire...and we know what happened there don't we?

[wyldwolf]

49. A walk down DU recent memory lane

The national polls don't mean much as far as the primary election is concerned. State by state is what matters in the primaries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3212290&mesg_id=3212893

They're also national polls, not state-by-state choices, which is how we choose a president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3211897&mesg_id=3212383

[Clark2008]

51. I said the same thing there as I said here.

:shrug:

Actually, I'm still asking for state-by-state poling between Republian and Dem front-runners. I don't see that here. I just see state-by-state poling of Dems ONLY and national poling between Republican and Dems in the posts above.

I believe that HRC is beating all comers in the state-by-state poling of Dems - she has more name recognition. But I don't think she (or any of the top three, to be honest) would beat a Fred Thompson or a Rudy Guiliani in many of the purple/red state-by-state poling.

[Tellurian]

55. Personally, I don't believe Fred Thompson is going to run..

not after the announcement he has Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Granted, it's in remission but the prognosis overall is what matters.

[elizm]

53. CHECK THESE POLLS OUT CLOSELY FOLKS!

Many of these polls are WAY outdated and not from the past couple of months. And some of the polls, for some reason I can't imagine, don't even have Obama listed...such as Washington state??? There were others as well, I just can't remember which from my quick check. This was a real stretch for ELMER here...And if you didn't look closely you were fooled by it all. Check closely...you'll see!

[SaveElmer]

54. Make sure to scroll to the bottom of the page...

They are not in date order, and the latest is not always at the top...although you are right about Washington...I didn't notice Obama wasn't there...

[elizm]

57. Scroll to the bottom of the SC page...

You won't find the most recent polling date which is here:

http://www.insidersc.com/restricted/2007/April%2007/4-10-07/bandy.php

Today, Obama holds a comfortable lead in South Carolina, according to a new telephone poll.

He leads with 34 percent of the Democratic primary vote, followed by Clinton with 20 percent.

What is worrisome for the Clinton campaign is that she is in danger of slipping into third place in South Carolina. The poll shows that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is only three percentage points away from overtaking Clinton.

[mckeown1128]

58. Finally some sanity.

Thank you!! For a little while I thought I was in bizaro DU. I have been trying to get them to realize that it was bad polling data. This is just pro-hillary propaganda. Obama and Edwards are doing much better than claimed here.

[SaveElmer]

63. This poll was taken approximetely the same time...

Shows CLinton ahead...


http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6358431

[mckeown1128]

77. Oh come on!!!

I am getting sick of you spinning everything. The poll you mentioned had a sampling of ONLY 146 democrats in SC. Give me a break. The point is hillary isn't as far ahead as you would like to make her seem. Another nation wide 5-10 point switch toward obama or edwards would take majority of those states away from Hillary. With the momentum on Obama's and especially Edward's side and ten months left... All I am asking is that you be honest. Here is a link http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/sc-index-polling-in-sc/

[SaveElmer]

79. Now whose spinning...

A shift of only 5 or 10 percent...5 or 10 percent is very large in politics...you act like it would take a couple days...a 10% shift for example would make a 60-40 lead a tie...sorry but a 20% lead is huge in politics...

I did include states that had polls prior to February for which I apologized...however, most of them have been since February, many much more recent...and the fact is Hillary is leading in an overwhelming number of them....some by quite substantial margins (California for example)...

I am told time and time again that national polls are meaningless...the latest Gallup has her 18 ahead of Obama for example....so I posted state polls...some severely outdated, but most were not...and Hillary leads in nearly all of them...so yes her lead is substantial...and to spin it otherwise is just not factual...

As to the South Carolina poll...I am not a pollster...but it has a margin of error of 4.9%, a bit high, but not abnormally so...and unless you have some extant information that shows that these polls have been historically grossly inaccurate, there is no reason to not think it is as legitimate as any other poll...

Lastly, I have absolutely nothing against Obama...in fact I have said on many occasions I believed he would be President someday...however at this point I simply believe Hillary would make a better President....

I post poll numbers that favor her like supporters of any other candidate here does when they have polls that are favorable to their candidate...

[mckeown1128]

106. Just Stop!

I feel like I am talking to a fox n%ws host. Stop trying to twist everything I say. I was trying to say a 5-10 point shift (Whether it is +3 Obama and -2 Clinton) would shift several states away from Clinton. Let me see the link that says that a poll of 146 people has a margin of error of 4.9%. It is just not enough people to be considered accurate. I couldn't give a flip if you want Clinton for president, the fact is that you are claiming that your polling data is just a little old and that is not true. I have debunked most of your spin (about NC and SC and Clinton's lead in most states.) I wont be back to comment because I am just wasting my time trying to keep things honest in here. p.s. at least you are honest in your last statement of trying to post poll numbers that favorable to her. Just don't claim that they are current and accurate.

[dsc]

107. I don't know if the poll has the MOE he says it does or not

but I teach AP stats and can tell you it is possible for that poll to have that MOE. It all depends on the size of the electorate, which is probably pretty small and the care with which the sample is chosen.

[SaveElmer]

114. Here...

Information contained in the SCIndex was compiled from a poll of likely General Election voters conducted April 3-4, 2007, and has an error of +/- 4.9 percentage points.

It is at the bottom of the link the poster gave me to prove it was a bad poll...

[SaveElmer]

113. It's in the frickin link you gave me...

Right there...it is also in the link I provided...

What I do know about polling is that it is not just the quantity but the quality of the sample...so don't pretend you are some polling expert when you are not...if you have any evidence that this polling group has been historically inaccurate...post it, but stop whining about something you obviously know little about...

[BamaLefty]

64. Sorry to tell you,

that HRC will get punted here in Alabama. Regardless of what any poll says, Alabama will NEVER vote for her.

[SaveElmer]

65. Is this anecdotal evidence...

Or do you have polling evidence to indicate this...

[BamaLefty]

66. Lifetime experience

SaveElmer, let me start off by telling you that I am not anti-Hillary. Unlike many on this site, I would gladly vote for her in the general election and be tied up in knots watching the returns just like in '04! Her lifetime of service to the public is certainly very admirable.

However, Hillary Clinton is seen as Satan's right hand man. No, people didn't "like" Kerry, but they sure didn't hate him. They hate her. In Alabama, as sad as it may be, many people have the idea that women should not hold leadership positions. They basically believe that women should just shut up and defer to the man at every turn in the road -- women are included in this category, too. I hear people of all walks of life talk about "Oh! I sure hope like hell that Hillary Clinton doesn't win!"

Don't get me wrong, Alabama has elected numerous women to state offices before and we're not as backward as the national media tries to portray us. But I do know that HRC won't be getting our delegates or our 9 votes in November should she be the nominee.

John Edwards is the best fit for our state and this entire region. Not to mention, he is polling very well and doesn't have near the "hate-base" that she does. I hate to say it, but I think her being the nominee would set us back to the days of 2004 -- the Northeast, urban centers in the Midwest, and the Pacific coast states. That just doesn't add up to 270.

[SaveElmer]

67. In a poll taken the second week of February...

Hillary was at 44% among Democrats...

Who are these people answering this way then? If as you say Alabama Democrats despise Hillary, why would 44% of them still say they intend to vote for her in the primary...?

While not extremely current, that poll is not that long ago!

[BamaLefty]

69. They polled people from Mars

I saw that a while ago. I couldn't believe it. And Democrats aren't exactly against her, just Independents and Repubes.

I'll still be surprised if she wins Alabama in the primaries. There are many blacks in Alabama and they'll likely go Obama. The northern, more agricultural part of the state will go for Edwards. The Mobile/Montgomery/Birmingham/other cities will go Hillary. It'll be interesting.

Seeing your point, unfortunately. ;)

[SaveElmer]

70. Well probably not gonna make a ton of difference...

I can't see any Democrat winning in the general...

Is Sessions in any trouble? (don't remember if he is up in 2008 actually)

[BamaLefty]

82. Actually,

a new Gallup poll says that more Alabamians consider themselves Democrats than Republicans. First time since the 1980's.

Sessions? Ehh, probably not. We've got an awesome candidate to run against him in Ron Sparks - Alabama's Ag Commission. Sparks proclaims that he is a liberal (gasp!), yet got 60% of the vote and won 62 out of 67 counties in last year's election. Amazing, huh? Sparks will thrash Sessions on the issues and may have a shot at winning. Sessions sucks.

[SaveElmer]

88. Yeah from what I've seen and heard...

Sessions is about as dumb as a pile of rocks...much like my FORMER Senator George Allen...

[PresidentObama]

68. Bravo, Hillary supporters!! Your candidate is looking more and more like a winner.

Despite what DU thinks.

Kudos on the strong poll numbers state by state, and nation wide. Let's see if Hillary can maintain this success!!

[SaveElmer]

71. She is strong in most states...but see caveat above...

I rushed through this polling data a bit quickly last night...so some are rather outdated...

However the main point is accurate that she is ahead in an overwhelmingly large number of states...I'm gonna go through in more detail and post only those from February on...I think that will more effectivel make my point...

[Forkboy]

72. Outdated and misleading.

I don't see you as the lying type,so I'll chalk this up to a bad night.

[SaveElmer]

73. See above...

Many are out of date...but most are since February...

I did have a late night, and will post a more detailed version after I get some sleep..

Didn't mean to mislead, and going through them I still come to the same result...Hillary is leading in an overwhelmingly large number of states.

[Forkboy]

75. I'm with you on the late night stuff.

I read your explanation after I posted (one day I'll read a whole thread before posting).

Thanks for explaining to me anyways.

[renie408]

80. You know, I am almost to the point of wanting her to win the nomination just

to prove my point that she will get us KILLED in a general election. Mark the words of the people that are trying to tell you...

SHE WILL GET US KILLED.

Hillary will drag the phobics on the other side out of the woodwork to vote AGAINST her. Scream about wanting a link, whine about this being 'just an opinion', whatever, it's true.

[SaveElmer]

81. Yeah and the phobics really hid in their basements...

With John Kerry as the nominee didn't they?

Would have rather had Hillary going up against the Swifties than Kerry frankly...

[renie408]

83. I have an entire family of phobics and I live in South Carolina

Most of them are extremely disenchanted with the GOP. To a man, they tell me they wouldn't vote against John Edwards and outloud, at least, they say nice things about Obama. Every one of them would vote against Hillary. Squeak about it being anecdotal all you want. I bet there are a lot of people here who can tell you the same anecdote. And even amongst my Dem friends here, Hillary doesn't get much play. For the life of me, I can't figure out how she keeps showing up as winning in polls. But you go on and keep thinking she could win the GE.

We'll see.

edited to add:

Please don't get me wrong. I think Hillary would make a fine President and I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. I am just telling you what I hear every time her name gets mentioned. And I do believe that the GOP could whip up an anti-Hillary frenzy with much more ease than they could against either Obama or Edwards.

[SaveElmer]

84. Yes the tried and true anecdotal evidence...squeak, squeak...

And I live in Virginia, am very active in the party here...and see significant enthusiasm for Hillary. I have several independent friends who are leaning her way, and even one Republican who is volunteering for her campaign...


"For the life of me, I can't figure out how she keeps showing up as winning in polls. "

Because most people don't live here in the DU bubble where Hillary is Satan...the plain fact is, Hillary is very popular with Democratic voters...which is not surprising to me in the least!

[renie408]

85. LOL...'DU Bubble'

I am rarely here at all. Mostly I live in the real world.

But hey, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her and I hope like hell you are right.

But I don't think you are.

[SaveElmer]

86. Whose your guy in the primaries?...nt

[renie408]

91. Gore. But if he doesn't run, Edwards.

I like Obama, but I don't know enough about him. I think Hillary is a competent politician, but I have the reservations I have already stated. I just think she draws too much fire from both ends and wouldn't be widely supported enough by the middle to win a general election.

[SaveElmer]

95. Afraid Gore ain't gonna get in it...

I have nothing at all against Edwards...my second choice actually would be Richardson...but Obama, or Dodd for that matter would be fine...

[renie408]

96. Why don't you think Gore is going to run?

I just read something the other day that he was likely to run, just waiting. Honestly, he could wait until the NORMAL time to get into it and would still win. Who wouldn't vote for Gore? Hell, even my GOP friends and family say they would actually vote for him.

[SaveElmer]

98. Too late I think...and frankly I think he is worried...

That his efforts with climate change would be harmed if it were dragged again into an overtly partisan arena....it seems to me he is extremely happy doing what he is doing, and is fully committed to it as his overriding priority...

A Presidential campaign would not only pull him away from it, it could potentially harm the cause...

And I think he is concerned, probably not without justification, that once he leapt back in, the media would be back to its old tricks trashing him as they did in 2000...

And I think if he had given any hint he was thinking about getting in that he would have given some signal to his fundraisers, campaign people etc not to sign on with other campaigns...

[renie408]

100. Too late?? The primaries are ten months away.

I think he could easily wait until this Summer and still be a big dog in this fight.

[SaveElmer]

101. Money, people, and endorsements...

Are moving to other campaigns at a rapid clip...including many that have helped Gore in previous campaigns...

He would get a boost based on who he is...but that won't sustain him when a good chunk of the money and people have already committed themselves to someone else...

And like I said, I think the overriding reason is that he simply doesn't want to...

[Forkboy]

87. Are you saying the hatred on the right for Kerry is equal to their hate for Clinton?

Do you really think they'll stay home if she wins the nomination like they did with Kerry?

Really?

[SaveElmer]

90. Haven't seen any pollin at all...

That shows the right stayed home in 2004....

You have some...?

I think the Republicans will get frothed up over whoever we nominate...frankly, Hillary has alot more experience dealing with the slime then than anyone else in the field...and she always comes out on top...

[renie408]

92. But I think the right WOULD be willing to stay home in '08.

As long as they don't feel driven to the polls. That is what I am hearing. The 'right', as we like to call them, are as tired of the GOP as we are.

[SaveElmer]

94. Well...I really don't know...

I heard that about 2006 as well, and it turned out not to have happened. I think they will get their blood flowing when 2008 comes around and will act like their usual asshole selves...

[renie408]

97. Maybe....but they don't have a candidate right now that they can

get fired up about and I really don't see any waiting in the wings. What would be sure to get them fired up is a candidate that they can really hate...and that is my fear about Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

99. Well like I said...

They seem to be able to jinn up the hate against anyone with a "D" next to their name...we'll see...meanwhile, I will continue to support Hillary because I think she would make the best President, and I think she will be the best campaigner. That she leads in most polls is a bonus as far as I am concerned...

[SunDrop23]

89. Gosh I wish I could be confident that the US would elect her. Forgive my reluctance...(nfm)

[renie408]

93. See?? n/t

[SunDrop23]

110. See what?

[renie408]

112. Sorry, that 'see' wasn't for you. It was for Elmer

I had stated that I didn't think Hillary could win a national election and that a lot of people agreed with me. To which Elmer said "blah blah blah...Hillary all the way." Not long after that, you wrote your post.

[SaveElmer]

116. I don't think I said blah, blah, blah...

I think what I did say was that anecdotal evidence from folks posting on a website that is considerably left of most Democrats, is useless as a measure of overall popularity...

[renie408]

117. It was a condensation. And after awhile, that's what it sounded like. n/t

[flaminbats]

115. Hillary could make a great candidate..

but she needs to stop making jokes!! :hurts:

for some reason I want to bite my lip off everytime she tells a joke, even if the joke was good..she always has trouble making me laugh. :cry: if she would just stick to the issues she is most passionate about..like cherry picking done by insurance companies, universal healthcare, and balancing the budget her speeches would be worth listening to. I think she could zero in on family values in a way no other Democrat can!

but it is nice to see Hillary finally backing an exit strategy for Iraq.

[PaDem]

118. off the edge ot the cliff we go..........

who's in?

[oasis]

123. kick